I'm going to Ripley you a new one

I wasn’t aware of the furore surrounding Jennifer Lawrence’s recent comments until I opened up Holly Math Nerd’s recent substack.

On Jennifer Lawrence and Action Heroes

I love Holly’s writing and she almost always has an interesting and thought-provoking take on things. Her take this time is also interesting and worth reading.

As I understand it, Lawrence gave an extended interview and t’internet (as is its wont) seized upon some daft quote or other and went for the jugular. Here’s the quote in question:

I remember when I was doing ‘Hunger Games,’ nobody had ever put a woman in the lead of an action movie because it wouldn’t work – because we were told girls and boys can both identify with a male lead, but boys cannot identify with a female lead

If you really think that, Jen, then just wait right there because Sigourney and Milla want to have a word with you (and there’s a long queue behind them).

Heck, even Colombiana starring Zoe Saldana, one of my favourite revenge movies, came out the year before the first Hunger Games.

There’s this weird mythology that has arisen that guys don’t much like female action stars or leads. It’s usually used to explain why a particular film has flopped. “I hated Resident Evil because Alice should have been an Alan” said no guy, ever.

All of that is a bit of harmless fun-poking at a daft, and incorrect, comment that claimed an unwarranted ‘first’.

But what really stands out in this quote is, once again, this notion of identification.

because we were told girls and boys can both identify with a male lead, but boys cannot identify with a female lead

What is this? What does it even mean?

I’m not overly convinced, being as odd as I am, that I’m in any way representative of, uh well, anything. I’m a huge fan of movies and TV shows. Certain genres, admittedly. But I’ve been scratching my head and going through my entire reasonably extensive DVD and BluRay collection to see if there’s a movie or show, any at all, for which I could say that I “identify” with a character.

Do people really do this? Do they “identify” with a character in any meaningful sense? And what does it mean to do this?

And why is it important to do so?

I mean, sure, I get that in a drama about the consequences of unemployment, say, you could sit there thinking that the events and feelings portrayed echoed your own life in some way, if you’d had that misfortune. You might, in that sense, “identify” with the character and the feelings of that character.

But a genetically modified zombie killing machine?

Nope - can’t say I’ve ever identified with one of those before.

But, apparently, this notion of “identification” is so important that the marketing gurus advise female authors (for example) to use their initials (eg JK Rowling) so as not to place some apparent barrier in the way of men being able to ‘identify’.

I remember watching Roots when it first appeared on TV in the UK. It was later castigated for playing fast and loose with historical facts, but that never bothered me. The series made a huge impact on me. I marvelled at the strength and dignity of Kunta Kinte and the irrepressible mischievousness of Chicken George as they each, in their own way, dealt with the horrors and consequences of slavery and racism. Role models certainly.

But did I identify with these characters?

I could watch Jack Bauer ‘damn it’ and ask for the ‘schematics’ or a ‘socket’ to be opened whilst twisting his knife in some supposed terrorist’s knee, all day long.

Do I identify with Jack? Hell, no.

I don’t watch stuff to “identify” with anything. I watch stuff primarily to be entertained. I may be something of a special case. Spending a day with the arcane squiggles of physics and trying to tease out some new fact or invention left my head like a plate of soggy mushy peas. The last thing I needed (or even could do) when I got home was to think again. I needed to veg out and watch some largely mindless and entertaining fluff.

At the moment I’m rather enjoying a lot of K-dramas. I joke that it’s because of their almost complete lack of diversity, but in reality it’s because they focus on entertaining you - pure and simple. Yes, they can be goofy, cheesy, and somewhat improbable, but you rarely feel they exist to push The Message™.

Are they using the term “identification” as a kind of synonym for having some sympathy (or empathy) with a character? It’s a reasonable requirement that, to some extent, the lead characters, the people you’re supposed to be rooting for, elicit some sympathetic response in you. Some people enjoy the ‘anti-hero’, but I kind of have to like the main characters - at least a little bit.

I had to stop watching Netflix’s recent effort, The Sandman, after episode 4 because the main character was a wooden, unlikeable, clod and I found myself wishing someone would just kill him off. It was pretty tedious stuff that even the great talents of Charles Dance and David Thewliss could not elevate above “meh” and I simply stopped caring about what happened.

Maybe this “identification” business is more about a fantasy, a daydream. I’d love to have the skills and wisdom of Ip Man, or a quarter of the charisma and musculature of The Rock, but other than the occasional childish fantasy, my grasp on reality, as slender as it is, does not lead me to “identification with” in any meaningful sense.

It’s the same with literature. I get that some authors have amazing insights and manage to string words together in what seem to be almost impossibly eloquent ways - and that these thought-provoking authors are important. For the reasons above, they’re not usually my go-to reading material. The brain mush after trying to figure stuff out is too great, and so I tend to settle for a rollicking good thriller, mystery or fantasy.

Weirdly, I have never once chosen a book to read based on the physical characteristics of the author. I must be an outlier, because I continually read about people who choose their books based on the melanin content or gametes of the author, or both.

When I’m asked who my favourite female super-hero is I often reply by saying Elizabeth Bennet. I’m only half-joking. She’s such an inspirational character and, horror of misogynistic horrors, from a book written by a woman¹.

I certainly don’t identify with Lizzie (and even less with Mr Collins), but she’s a great role model for all sorts of reasons.

Perhaps the problem is that we’re kind of obsessed with finding meaning in everything. Our heads are so stuffed full of alleged ‘meaning’ that there’s no room to just be. Identification ‘with’ or ‘as’ is a futile search for some kind of meaning.

This search for meaning is like the Alien Queen wanting to implant her eggs in the Newt of our souls and we sometimes need Ripley to come along and say

Get away from her, you bitch!

1. Although it would not come as any surprise to me if some ‘scholar’ popped up to claim that Jane Austen was, in fact, trans or non-binary.